| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:29:01 +0530 From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com> To: "Stefan Richter" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Roman Zippel" <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>, "Kumar Gala" <galak@...nel.crashing.org>, "Simon Horman" <horms@...ge.net.au>, "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>, "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org> Subject: Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus? On 5/22/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote: > Satyam Sharma wrote: > > On 5/22/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote: > >> When I said "The standard and maintainable way (for drivers at least) > >> is..." I didn't mean the example expression, I meant the *direction* in > >> which the example was stating dependencies. > > > > In that case I wish "the points" you make on threads are relevant to them. > > My initial reply was on a patch which removed the A-to-B declaration of > dependency. And if you think you can have the "direction of declaration of dependencies" the way you like it, and also (1) preserve current "select"-like behaviour, (2) introduce no build issues, and (3) get rid of the bogus warnings, then: Patches are welcome. (No, suggestions that don't work, or not fully applicable to the case at hand in this thread will NOT do). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists